Opinion
Case No. 20020918-CA.
FILED February 27, 2003. (Not For Official Publication)
Third District, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable Joseph C. Fratto Jr.
Charles Allen, Draper, Appellant Pro Se.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Natalie A. Wintch, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. See Utah R.App.P. 10. Allen appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for extraordinary relief filed under rule 65B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
On appeal, Allen reasserts that he was denied due process because he was placed in administrative segregation before his disciplinary hearing. Later, after the disciplinary hearing, Allen was placed in punitive isolation. Allen fails to demonstrate how the district court erred in dismissing the same argument. As the State correctly argues in its response, Allen received due process in his disciplinary hearing, his claim did not include a valid liberty interest, and the prison acted according to policy when implementing restrictions to insure safety and security within the prison. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261 (1987) (holding inmate rights may be restricted if reasonably related to legitimate penological interest).
Additionally, Allen asserts that the district court was biased against him and cut his arguments short because he is a prisoner. However, Allen fails to provide a transcript of the proceeding. In the absence of a transcript, this claim is unsupported in the record and we must presume the correctness of the proceedings below. See State v. Wetzel, 868 P.2d 64, 67 (Utah 1993) ("Parties claiming error below and seeking appellate review have the duty and responsibility to support their allegations with an adequate record."); State v. Blubaugh, 904 P.2d 688, 699 (Utah Ct.App. 1995) (assuming regularity of proceedings below because appellant failed to include transcript).
Allen also argues that the district court judge never fully investigated any of the alleged violations. However, in a case before the district court, the judge is the factfinder, not an investigator. In this case, the district court correctly found that Allen failed to state a valid due process claim in the allegations he raised in his habeas petition.
Because Allen fails to demonstrate how the trial court erred and the record does not support the allegation of bias, we grant the sua sponte motion and affirm the district court's dismissal of the petition.
Russell W. Bench, Judge, James Z. Davis, Judge, and William A. Thorne Jr., Judge, concur.